Curious Finnish fireman rings 16 000 goldeneyes and Danish farmer rings 12 000 starlings – the most amazing examples of citizen science

 

Pentti Runko ringing a small goldeneye duckling.

While scientist struggle with short-term funding periods, the curiosity for nature that the general public shows, can unearth mechanisms that can only be found with long-term datasets. The persistent and systematic observations made by nature enthusts enables research about climate change or life history traits over several generations. Both are issues that require long-term research – and a lot of time and effort. Below are some examples of remarkable work done by citizen scientists curious about nature.

16 000 ringed goldeneyes have passed through the hands of a Finnish fireman

Finnish fireman Pentti Runko has collected systematic data of goldeneyes for several scientific studies. After starting his work in 1984, by 2017 Runko has ringed an amazing 16 000 goldeneyes and checked several hundreds of nest boxes every year.

In a recently published study, the authors utilized data concerning 14 000 of these goldeneyes ringed by Runko between the years 1984-2014. Among these goldeneyes were 141 females that were ringed as ducklings and recaptured later in the area. Based on these data it was possible to follow the recruit females’ lives from hatching to breeding. Thus the early life circumstances of these females are known, and the circumstances can be used to study their effects later on in life. In some cases early life circumstances have severe results on subsequent life, for example on breeding performance (duckling video).

Goldeneyes lay eggs in the nest boxes (video), which Runko checks for eggs several time during the season, to evaluate the hatching dates (video), to catch females and to ring ducklings.

The study was able to show deviations between individuals during the first breeding years and how circumstances during early life affected the breeding statistics of these females. Most females began breeding at the age of 2, but 44% delayed the start of breeding. Winter severity of the first two years affected the timing of breeding, but did not affect which year the females began breeding. As a conclusion, it appears that certain traits buffer the effects that the severity of the first weeks have, so the breeding parameters of females are not affected.  The research also showed that first-time breeders tend to begin breeding later than the yearly specific averages.

After ringing ducklings get back to the nest box.

The authors of another study used a set of 405 females and their offspring’s ringed by Runko, and found that the females’ condition matters when it comes to breeding success. Older, early-nesting females with good body condition and larger broods were able to produce more female recruits for the local population. The later the females bred, the less recruits they produced. The study also showed that females tend to adjust their breeding according to the ice-out dates of lakes. However, differences were observed between the flexibility of the females. Because early-breeding goldeneyes succeed better, the authors conclude that selection favours early-breeding individuals.

The lives and breeding habits of goldeneye females are closely followed at Maaninka (video).

Climate change effects can also be observed from goldeneye phenology. Runko showed that during the last 30 years goldeneyes have advanced their egg-laying dates by 12 days.

45 years of starling surveys in a farmer’s backyard reveal climate warming

Starlings are becoming scarce in Europe.

The Danish Ornithological Society Journal recently published a study that utilized data gathered by a Danish farmer, who ringed starlings for 45 years. Dairy farmer Peder V. Thellesen ringed ca. 12 000 starlings nesting in 27 nest boxes, and measured their phenology systematically. The data showed that during the study period starlings advanced their egg-laying dates by more than 9 days. This advance was observed in both first and second clutches. The result reflects the increase in April temperatures. Another important observation was that while no change was observed in clutch size and hatching rate, nest box occupancy has fallen dramatically in recent years. Starlings used to be common in Europe, but now they have decreased widely in Europe, also in Denmark. Changes in agricultural land use, especially decreased cattle grazing, are suspected as one example affecting starling populations. Loss of cattle-grazed land means less insect-rich foraging lands for the birds.

 

Read more:

Fox, T. and Heldbjerg, H. 2017. Ornithology: Danish dairy farmer delivers data coup. Nature.

Pöysä, H., Clark, R. G., Paasivaara, A. and Runko, P. 2017. Do environmental conditions experienced in early life affect recruitment age and performance at first breeding in common goldeneye females? Journal of Avian Biology.

Clark, R. G., Pöysä, H., Runko, P. and Paasivaara, A. 2014. Spring phenology and timing of breeding in short-distance migrant birds: phenotypic responses and offspring recruitment patterns in common goldeneyes. Journal of Avian Biology.

Kari S. Maattinen Youtube videos about goldeneyes

Thellesen, P.V. Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris clutch size, brood size and timing of breeding during 1971-2015 in Southwest Jutland, Denmark. The Danish Ornithological Society Journal.

YLE 2016: Lintuharrastaja on uhrannut kevätlomansa telkänpoikasille jo 30 vuoden ajan – “Se voisi olla Suomen kansallislintu”. In Finnish.

YLE 2013: Linnut pesivät nyt viikkoja aikaisemmin kuin 1980-luvulla

 

Advertisements

A requiem for birds killed by alien predators

A small pond in the Finnish countryside is filled with squeaking, when several goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) and wigeon (Mareca penelope) broods are foraging. Suddenly a goldeneye hen alerts and flies cackling across the pond. The figure of an American mink (Neovison vison) appears on the water surface, which leads to an emergency escape of the duck broods. The American mink is an efficient predator, which does not belong in Finnish nature. Nonetheless it has already occupied the whole country. Alien species in Finland and other countries are a serious threat to birds.

Wetland ecology group_University of Helsinki_duck_goldeneye_wigeon_wetland

Duck broods escape after a watchful goldeneye female alerts after spotting an American mink.

A fur farming runaway became a nuisance

The American mink is, as its name reveals, an American species, which was brought to North Europe at the beginning of the 20th century. Minks escaped from farms and were successful in Europe. They were also introduced to nature on the Russian side. Rapidly American minks occupied all of Fennoscandia.

The American mink utilizes various wetlands, lakes and archipelagos, where it predates birds and limits their populations. Minks don’t only eat birds, but also their eggs. The American mink is especially harmful in Fennoscandian archipelagos, because birds are not adapted to such predators. Certain bird species, such as the black guillemot (Cepphus grylle), are especially threatened by mink predation. Traditionally Fennoscandia has not had such predators. The European mink (Mustela lutreola), which is now extinct from many of its historical areas, did not occupy the archipelago in the same way as its American cousin does.

Wetland ecology group_University of Helsinki_American mink_alien predator_wetland

The American mink is currently a common wetland species in Fennoscandia.

Raccoon dog ended up on EU’s black list

The raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) is an Asian species that was introduced to the European parts of the Soviet Union to be hunted for its fur. From the Soviet the raccoon dogs spread west. Soon raccoon dogs occupied all of Finland, and are now also reaching Sweden. Currently Finnish hunters are working to prevent raccoon dogs from going over the Swedish border. The raccoon dog was recently classified as an invasive alien species by the European Union. One reason for this is its influence on birds.

Wetland ecology group_University of Helsinki_supikoira_raccoon dog_vieraslaji

Raccoon dog destroys an artificial duck nest. Game camera photo.

Research conducted at the Helsinki University shows that raccoon dog density and predation pressure on artificial nests correlates on wetlands. Other studies have found raccoon dogs to destroy both pheasant and duck nests. Thus raccoon dog removal around wetlands is an important way to protect birds.

And then there were no Stephens Island wrens left

A cat named Tibbles carried little birds to a light house yard on an island of New Zealand in the late 1800s. The birds were Stephens Island wrens (Xenicus lyalli). The cat hunted at least 15, after which apparently none were left. Rats and cats might already have killed the wren populations from the other islands. The Stephens Island wren is not the only victim of cats. Australian researchers have counted that domestic cats have killed at least 20 native species. In the USA cats are estimated to kill 3,7 milliard (3.7 billion) birds annually. Most birds are killed by unowned cats. Cats therefore appear to kill more birds than any other anthropogenic cause in the USA. Worldwide cats have killed 33 animal species to extinction.

Wetland ecology group_University of Helsinki_cat_alien predator_wetland

A cat stalking a duck brood in a wetland. In this case cutting the vegetation saved the brood.

The raccoon is occupying Europe

In addition to the American mink, the raccoon (Procyon lotor) has also arrived in Europe from North America. The raccoon was also brought Europe to be farmed for its fur. This highly adaptable animal has succeeded well in Europe, and is now common for example in Germany and France. The population size in Germany is already evaluated at over a million. Raccoons are spreading north, and are currently settled in Denmark and individuals have also been found in Sweden. Compared to raccoon dogs, raccoons also live successfully in cities. But just like raccoon dogs, raccoons are also well adapted to the wetland environment, and are thus harmful to waterbirds.

Raccoons reproduce effectively, and therefore their extirpation is impossible once a population has been established. This is why efforts need to be focused on stopping the species from spreading. The raccoon is classified as an invasive alien species in the EU, so farming them or having one as a pet is illegal.

Read more:

Väänänen, V.-M. 2007: The effect of raccoon dog Nyctereutes procyonoides removal on waterbird breeding success. Suomen Riista (PDF)

PHYS.ORG 29.1. 2014: Cats in US kill billions of birds, mammals, study finds

Loss, S.R. et al. 2013: The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nature Communications

Marra, P. & Santella C. 2017. Cat Wars. The Obituary of the Stephens Island Wren

Spiegel Online 3.8.2012. Germany Overrun by Hordes of Masked Omnivores

NOBANIS Invasive Alien fact sheets, Raccoon (PDF)

Increased geese populations occupy pastures and city lawns in Fennoscandia

Many geese populations in Fennoscandia are increasing rapidly, and geese have become more visible in human-inhabited landscapes. Currently geese utilize agricultural lands and even urban lawns. High geese brood densities have a significant impact on their environments due to increasing grazing pressure.

Greylag geese graze on pastures and hay lands, preferring short vegetation to high ones. Geese grazing also keeps vegetation short. Geese trimming a lawn in Reykjavik, the capital of Iceland.

Geese broods prefer pastures near shores

A newly published Swedish study revealed that greylag geese broods are rather picky when selecting farmland fields for grazing. The most used fields were pasturelands near water. Goslings preferred shorter vegetation, assumingly due to its higher quality and the open landscape views in case of predators. Grazing geese also keep the vegetation short.

Broods tend to prefer grazing areas near shores, from where they can easily reach the safety of water when threatened. Grazing geese broods are suggested to pose a fairly small risk of agricultural conflicts due to their preference for near-shore pastures (instead of crop fields for example). However, extremely high grazing pressure by geese can reduce plant biomass, thus affecting livestock grazing. In arctic areas, such as Greenland and Svalbard, geese grazing is observed to be the reason for decreased hay and decreased seed counts in soil.

In contrast to broods that prefer near-shore areas, non-breeding geese can cause conflicts with agriculture, due to their grazing in crop fields. Non-breeding birds that are able to fly can utilize areas further from water, and according to a Swedish study, they also graze also on crop and vegetable fields in addition to pastures. Large flocks preferred typically open and flat with no or few trees or shrubs.

The two differing patterns shown by broods and adults means that geese managers should consider the two behavioural strategies when planning geese management.

Barnacle geese grazing among Helsinki University research cattle. Breeding geese flocks have e.g. destroyed some the university’s research fields and caused high expenses.

City geese have found Helsinki’s shore lawns

The barnacle goose is a fairly new species in Helsinki. The species tends to breed in remote arctic areas, but after geese were released from the local zoo in the late 1980s, geese began breeding on the islands and islets of the Helsinki archipelago. The released geese are assumed to have returned to breed, and brought their offspring and other geese with them. Since then the goose population has been growing and occupying shore areas from the islands and mainland. Grazing geese are nowadays a visible element in the city of Helsinki, competing over space with citizens.

Geese densities are rather high on Helsinki shore lawns, where non-flying broods gather to graze. In August juvenile birds can move further from the shoreline to feed. The best seashore lawns tempt dozens of broods. In urban areas lawns are usually a nice buffet table for the geese: they typically prefer plant species used in lawns, and mowing sustains fresh vegetation. Compared to natural lawns, urban lawns can be better for broods.

This geese enclosure has very limited plant diversity, but Potentilla species not preferred by geese are flourishing.

 

However, geese grazing is affecting plant diversity by decreasing it. Few plant species tend to dominate in the grazed areas, while  the diversity and coverage of species is more balanced in areas with no geese grazing. Good quality lawns benefit broods, because they don’t need to move long distances while grazing. Geese population growth in the Helsinki area has been refracting after reaching ca. 1300 breeding pairs, and one reason is thought to be the limitation of good feeding habitats for broods. Geese already use almost all possible lawns in Helsinki. During dry summers with poor lawn growth geese may be greatly food-limited, which is reflected in the population size. Thus it seems that the barnacle goose population in Helsinki has reached its carrying capacity.

In the Helsinki archipelago barnacle geese nest commonly on rocky islands and islets, where food availability is highly limited. Well-managed city lawns are thus tempting for the broods.

Methods for preventing geese grazing were measured in Helsinki. One possibility is to use plant species that geese don’t prefer, instead of the current species mix that seems to be especially tempting for geese. Another possibility is to fence off areas were geese are not welcome. Goslings cannot fly, and thus cannot reach fenced areas, and they also avoid areas where they have limited visual contact to water.

 

Read more:

Olsson et al. 2017: Field preference of Greylag geese Anser anser during the breeding season. European Journal of Wildlife Research

Barnacle goose population declined in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. 2016. Environment.fi

Barnacle goose population remains unchanged despite a good breeding year. 2013. Environment.fi

Niemi et al. 2007: Valkoposkihanhi pääkaupunkiseudulla. Suomen Ympäristö.

Valkoposkihanhien seuranta. 2016. Ymparisto.fi.

Asymmetrical competition in boreal lakes

Fish inhabit boreal lakes throughout the year and aquatic invertebrates living in the same lakes belong on the menu of several fish species. Ducks also utilize these same invertebrates for half the year. Even ducks that usually eat plants consume invertebrates; especially females preparing to lay eggs and small ducklings need protein in their diet. Boreal lakes are typically barren and invertebrate-poor. A newly published review article emphasizes the need to carefully deliberate when considering the introduction of fish in wetlands where they do not originally belong or that are established specifically for ducks.

Fish modify the structure of aquatic invertebrate communities, and thus the structure, abundance and diversity of invertebrate communities differ between lakes with and without fish. Fish predate especially large invertebrates that typically are the top predators of invertebrate communities. Therefore the community structure is skewed towards smaller species in lakes with fish.

Invertebrates living among vegetation are better protected from fish predation and thus predation is higher in open water. This means that fish compete especially with those duck species that forage in the open water (e.g. teal), while species foraging among vegetation are less affected (e.g. mallard).

The review article clearly showed that the food competition caused by fish is harmful for breeding ducks. However, the situation is not always clear, because fish and duck abundances are typically limited by the same environmental key factors such as lake productivity. Thus both ducks and fish can be abundant in lakes rich in invertebrate and vegetative food material. But this competitive set-up is emphasized in barren lakes.

Common goldeneye broods prefer fishless lakes. © Sari Holopainen

Common goldeneye broods prefer fishless lakes. © Sari Holopainen

Researchers in Finland introduced fish to lakes that had become fishless due to acidification. Monitoring showed that the lake use by common goldeneye broods declined after these introductions. Pairs on the other hand continued using the lakes as before. The difference is suggested to be caused by the foraging manners of ducks at different life stages. Adult ducks find their food from the lake benthos, while ducklings and fish concentrate on competing over nektonic invertebrates. Competition theory is also supported by other studies: ducklings need to use more time foraging in lakes with fish, and still seem to grow slower than in fishless lakes.

The fish experiment was performed in the opposite way in Sweden, where fish were eradicated from certain lakes. Researchers found that all invertebrate groups became more abundant and goldeneye brood numbers increased.

In Finland lakes have been recovering from acidification and this has positively reflected to fish populations. The recovery of fish might affect the breeding success of ducks in boreal lakes, especially concerning breeding goldeneyes.

The competition between fish and ducks is asymmetric in the sense that fish will affect ducks, but ducks do not affect fish. Fish are present in the lakes year-round and if times are thin, the fish just grow slower. They also affect the invertebrate populations of lakes. Ducklings will also grow slower in bad times, but their mortality increases rapidly if food becomes scarce. The effect of ducks on invertebrates is also milder. Thus fish should not be introduced to wetlands established especially for ducks.

Read more:

Nummi, P., Väänänen, V.-M., Holopainen S. & Pöysä H. 2016. Duck–fish competition in boreal lakes – a review. – Ornis Fennica 93: 67-76.

Gunnarsson, G., Elmberg, J., Sjöberg, K., Pöysä, H. & Nummi, P. 2006. Experimental evidence for density-dependent survival in mallard (Anas platychynchos) ducklings. — Oecologia 149: 203-213

Nummi, P., Väänänen, V-M., Rask, M., Nyberg, K. & Taskinen, K. 2012.  Competitive effects of fish in structurally simple habitats: perch, invertebrates, and goldeneye in small boreal lakes. — Aquatic Sciences 74: 343-350.

David and Goliath – a story of bark beetles

Bark beetles (Scolytinae) are small beetles a few millimeters in size. Their larva develop under tree bark eating the phloem, xylem, and cambium layers. Certain species cause extensive forest damage by killing healthy trees, while others only impact weakened individuals. The eating patterns (called galleries) and the trees’ defensive reactions cause disturbances in the nutrient and water cycling within the trunks. The trees literally dry to death.

Bark beetles can be detected by the gallery patterns they leave on tree trunks. These patterns are species-specific, and often very beautiful. The patterns can be used to recognize infestations and begin warding off the worst damage. Then again, the gallery patterns cannot be seen until the tree bark falls off.

Bark beetles also have a secret weapon: wood-staining fungi. This group of fungi includes several species that damage wood or cause serious diseases to trees. Bark beetles and wood-staining fungi have developed various relationships such as the ambrosia beetles that spread certain fungi species into their galleries to farm them for food. Wood-staining fungi benefit from the bark beetles transporting them to new trees, and have developed exceptionally sticky spores that attach to adult beetles as they are preparing to disperse. Bark beetles also benefit: the fungi weaken new tree individuals, giving adult bark beetles the opportunity to infest and lay their eggs in these trees.

wetland-ecology-group_university-of-helsinki_wood-staining-fungi

A possible wood-staining fungus is spreading beneath the bark of a birch infested by the birch bark beetle. ©Stella Thompson

It’s hard to believe that tiny beetles and even more minuscule fungi can kill gigantic trees. Situations where a bark beetle or fungi spreads to a new geographical region among lumber are particularly devastating. The new host trees have no immunity or defense mechanisms against this new organism and the alien species spreads like wildfire.

Dutch elm disease is a prime example of this. Ophiostoma ulmi, a fungus killing elm shoots spread from Asia initially to Europe and then, fueled by the post-World War I reconstruction boom, from Europe to North America in lumber. European elm species coped with the disease slightly better than their North American cousins. European elms also died, but the spread of the disease around Europe took several decades and finally the outbreak waned. 10–40% of the elms died, depending on the country in question. The situation was very different in North America. The American elm (Ulmus americana), a very popular urban and ornamental tree, formed large forests in the eastern areas of the continent. It narrowly escaped extinction through active eradication and education measures such as campaigns forbidding the transportation of firewood outside infected states. Unfortunately, a new, much more virulent fungus (Ophiostoma nova-ulmi) causing Dutch elm disease spread to Europe and North America during the 1940s. This fungus has caused the near annihilation of elms from several European countries. As of yet Finland has mostly been spared by the disease, but this may change with a warming climate that allows beetles belonging to the Scolytus genus that carry Dutch elm disease to overwinter in more northern regions. These beetles are already found on the northern coast of Estonia and in the Stockholm area of Sweden. The birch bark beetle (Scolytus ratzeburgi), commonly found in Finland, does not spread Dutch elm disease as it has specialized in solely utilizing birch trees.

However, the birch bark beetle spreads the Ophiostoma karelicum -fungus. Trappings

wetland-ecology-group_university-of-helsinki_birchbarkbeetle

The presence of birch bark beetles can be detected by their unique eating patterns. ©Stella Thompson

conducted during 2008 and 2009 for a study carried out in Norway, Finland, and Russia revealed the prevalence of O. karelicum: every single birch bark beetle individual carried the fungus, which was also found in each of the beetle’s galleries that were searched. The life cycle and ecology of O. karelicum is very similar to the fungi spreading Dutch elm disease, and the commonness of the fungus and the birch bark beetle means a very high risk of the disease spreading to e.g. North America. The birch species native to North America would most probably have no resistance to the disease.

On the other hand, pitch canker (Gibberella circinata) is a fungus spread by bark beetles, originating in North America, which has now spread to Europe where it causes pine mortality. The Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), native to e.g. Finland, is especially susceptible, but the disease has not spread as far north as Scandinavia yet.

To make these dynamics even more complicated, several mite species have also been shown to transport or act as the primary hosts of wood-staining fungi. These mites are in turn spread by bark beetles. The relationships and interactions between these three organisms are still poorly understood.

The disease resistance of tree species can be increased through cultivation. American elm cultivars more resistant to Dutch elm disease have been found, and their disease resistance has been further enhanced through cultivation. These cultivars are most probably the reason that elm forests still exist today in North America, although the age and size composition of these forests has changed considerably with the death of the old and large trees. Biological and chemical disease control is also a possibility: fungicides can be injected into live trees to stop the spread of specific diseases. Six fungicides combating Dutch elm disease are currently on the market in the US.

Similar control measures can most probably be developed against O. karelicum. However, widespread injection campaigns are difficult to implement. In the US, Dutch elm disease is mainly controlled by injecting individual ornamental or urban trees. Injection control as an effective eradication measure requires more development before it becomes a feasible tool for preventing damage caused by alien species.

Let’s ban lead shot!

The use of lead shot and sinks is a global phenomenon. Only the past decades has

wetland-ecology-group_university-of-helsinki_blog_hazel grouse

Grouse species also suffer from the harmful effects of lead shot. ©Stella Thompson

increased our understanding of the negative effects that toxic lead shot inflicts on ecosystems. As an example, birds die of lead poisoning after eating lead shot. They mistake the ammunition for sand or grit, which they use to aid their digestion. The birds’ gizzards and stomach acids dissolve the shot, causing lead to accumulate in their bones. As little as two lead shots is enough to directly cause the death of a mallard-sized animal.

During the 1980s, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) conducted a study on the effects of lead exposure on water birds such as waterfowl. Diving ducks were found to be most susceptible, but lead shot was also commonly found in dabbling ducks, geese, and swans. Long-term monitoring by the USFWS also uncovered negative effects on bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) populations, and since then, several studies have found harmful effects to numerous animal groups around the world, e.g. bears, deer, predatory birds, doves, loons, and frogs. International studies also associate lead shot with increased lead concentrations in people who regularly consume game.

A federal ban on using lead shot for waterfowl hunting was issued in 1991 in the US. Since then, 34 states have decreed tighter state-wide bans, e.g. California completely banned the use of lead shots in the home ranges of the California condor (Gymnogyps californianus), and by July 2019 California will completely ban lead shot in all forms of hunting, the first state to do so.

But what is the European Union’s game plan concerning lead shot? A total ban has been proposed, but the motion is currently only a thought, and we are still miles away from actual progress. Several countries in the EU have issued various types of bans, e.g. the lead shot has been prohibited in wildfowl hunting in Finland since 1996. The US also seems far from a federal ban.

So what’s the big deal, why are we not stepping up and pushing forward?

Not everyone has been satisfied with the disappearance of affordable, high quality, and gun-safe lead shot. The lead shot ban has caused a great deal of debate and criticism over the years. Many are hoping to weaken the ban in waterfowl hunting to only concern certain shallow wetlands or very important rest areas along migration routes. Those opposing the ban have based their arguments on several propositions formed in the 1990s, which have since been scientifically proven incorrect:

 

Claim 1: Lead shot is not dangerous, because it is believed to rapidly sink to the bottom of wetlands, where waterfowl cannot reach it.

After initiating the partial lead shot ban in 1991, the USFWS began long-term monitoring of its affects. Lead shot –induced mortality in mallards dropped by 64% in the six years following the ban. And this is a dabbling duck species, which according to studies should not even suffer the most from lead poisoning. The impacts that the ban has had on diving duck populations, which find their nutrition from the bottom mud layer of wetlands, or on small duck species are probably even more pronounced. Lead poisoning additionally causes e.g. reproductive problems, which can lead to long-term population declines even without directly killing all individuals. For example, a French research group found that female teals carry shot in their gizzards more frequently than males do, wherefore females had worse survival rates than males. A study in the US relates 17–46% of the mortality of loons directly to lead shot, while the same estimates for swans and bald eagles are 31% and 12%, respectively. The lead shot ban is estimated to annually save 1.4 million waterfowl in the States alone. In Canada, the lead concentrations found in the bones of water birds lessened by 50–70% following a ban. An although loons are not hunted as game, their population declines due to lead shot and sinks should be taken in to consideration when considering the fate of toxic lead shot.

wetland-ecology-group_university-of-helsinki_blog_teal_mallard

Both teal and mallards suffer from lead poisoning, which besides causing death also causes behavioural abnormalities. This makes individuals more susceptible to hunting. ©Veli-Matti Väänänen.

Claim 2: Alternative shot types (mainly steel, vismuth, and zinc) are inefficient and expensive.

A 2015 study in the US compared the effectiveness of lead shot and two types of steel shot in the hunting of mourning doves (Zenaida macroura). No differences were found in aim, the number of injured escapees, hunter satisfaction, or realized quarry numbers. Necropsies of shot doves revealed no differences in the numbers of through-body shots or average strike depths. Steel shot was therefore found to be accurate enough for dove hunting. A poll study found nearly 80% of US hunters to prefer steel to lead shot, or at least consider the two equally effective. Initially the steel shot sold in several countries tried to mimic the qualities of lead shot. The resulting low muzzle velocities and large ammunition size led to poor hunting success. Higher quality steel shot is currently widely available, but the damage caused by poor shot quality was immediate, and is the only reason why steel shot still carries a bad reputation. Many people tested steel shot once or twice, and returned to illegally using lead shot despite the bans.

Steel shot was additionally about four times as expensive as lead shot when the ban was issued in the US, but rising demand has caused their prices to drop significantly. The same would probably occur in many European countries, where demand to increase.

 

Claim 3: Hunting with alternative ammunition increases the numbers of wounded animals. This has been suggested to happen because of the ineffectiveness of non-lead shot and hunters being unaccustomed to lighter weight ammunition.

The USFWS annually conducts a poll inventorying e.g. the numbers of total hunted quarry and injured escapees. During the 1950s and ‘60s, the number of injured escapees was about 20%, but initially grew to about 24% after the partial led shot ban. However, a few years later numbers dropped down to initial levels, as hunters became used to the new shot. During the last years the level has dropped to 14%. The study conducted on mourning dove hunting success also did not reveal any differences in the numbers of injured escapees. So if European hunters are still performing worse after lead shot bans in their countries, they should perhaps consider looking in the mirror and wondering what’s wrong with their aim.

 

Claim 4: The lead shot ban has decreased realized duck quarries, e.g. because hunting and hunting success have lessened.

To date, there is no scientific proof to back either of these claims. But on the contrary, waterfowl populations have decreased markedly during this same time period due to disagreeable habitat change. Could this, by any chance, be the actual reason for diminishing quarry sizes? Especially as assessments and research show that hunters have in fact not obeyed the lead shot ban very widely. For example, 90% of Finnish hunters are still estimated to use lead shot in waterfowl hunting. About 70% of the ducks shot in Britain carry lead shot in their bodies. This means that the use of steel shot cannot have decreased duck quarries, because steel shot simply isn’t being used.

However, one actual problem is that steel shot cannot be used in certain older shotguns. This has probably slightly lessened the duck hunting enthusiasm of some elderly hunters.

 

Unfortunately, the European Commission wants to focus on only lessening the amounts of lead found in wetlands. The EU has ratified the UN’s Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, so we should be rid of lead shots within three years. Therefore it is fairly questionable that a total ban is currently not being discussed in more detail. A few EU nations, e.g. Denmark and Holland, have executed a total ban, thus preventing the use of lead shot in any forms of hunting. Nothing appears to be happening in the US either. Despite the encouraging results on the number of lead poisoning incidents dropping dramatically, the effectiveness of partial bans is just too weak. An overview from 2015 by the University of Oxford estimates that 50 000 to 100 000 birds die annually from lead poisoning in Britain alone. According to the Finnish Food Safety Authority and the Finnish Museum of Natural History, every third white-tailed sea eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) death is directly related to lead poisoning. Partial bans are ineffective and their execution cannot be properly monitored. A total ban would also create pressure to develop shot that would work well with older shotguns. Now is the time to finally completely ban lead shots.

 

Additional information

on lead poisoning occurring in several bird species

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00119051

http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_information/lead_poisoning/

 

on the mourning dove study

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.504/full

 

on the effects of lead on teals

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320707001346